myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
right wing supreme court right wing activism
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 19262

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RBG ADMITTED, even BOASTED, that her objective was to legislate from the bench ... i.e. make stuff up. Since their charter is to interpret the constitution rather than making up new laws to suit their individual ideology, that should have led to her permanent recall with the support of 100 senators. On the contrary, Sotomayor admitted the same thing, with no consequences.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vientomas



Joined: 25 Apr 2000
Posts: 935

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 6:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

isobars wrote:
RBG ADMITTED, even BOASTED, that her objective was to legislate from the bench ... i.e. make stuff up. Since their charter is to interpret the constitution rather than making up new laws to suit their individual ideology, that should have led to her permanent recall with the support of 100 senators. On the contrary, Sotomayor admitted the same thing, with no consequences.


You of course realize that it was the Supreme Court that gave themselves the power of judicial review aka "interpretation" of the Constitution? The very principle you agree with was the result of an activist Court that "made stuff up"?

Have a read of Marbury vs. Madison. Oh the irony!!!

BTW...Where is this "charter" you speak of? I would love a citation.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 19262

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The summary of M v M I had time to read said primarily that its impact was to allow judicial review, up to and including declaring an amendment unconstitutional. I have no quarrel with that. I don't consider that activism, but then I'm not a lawyer. But what RBG and Sotomayor support is replacing what is actually IN the constitution with what they, with all their political biases, WANT to see in it and law, aka legislating from the bench. Aren't the Supremes supposed to leave their political biases aside and focus on the constitution and the law when settling cases? If not, why should they have such power?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Mon Sep 10, 2018 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bush v Gore was the most extreme activism by the supreme court. Right wingers were all over states rights until then, and the constitution specifically states decide on voting procedures. Florida courts decided and the US suptreme court of right wingers stepped in and made a special case that is not to be law of the land a one-time case. even stating in the decision that this was a basically one-time exception.

Now that is supreme court activism of the worst kind..

Having Enron jets (largest political contributor to Bush) fly in ultra-partisan texas right-wingers to interfere in the counting of the ballots.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

so this nominee was in possession of stolen documents and lied about ever seeing them.

He is a criminal... well that makes him a right wing hero..


http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/kavanaugh-called-out-for-false-statements-on-stolen-documents-1317399619680


Kavanaugh called out for false statements on stolen documents

Quote:
Lisa Graves, former Senate Judiciary Committee chief counsel for nominations, argues that Brett Kavanaugh has lied in past testimony under oath about stolen Democratic documents and should not only not be confirmed to the Supreme Court, but should be impeached from the bench.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Tue Sep 11, 2018 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.yahoo.com/news/sheldon-whitehouse-asks-brett-kavanaugh-221532711.html

Sheldon Whitehouse Asks Brett Kavanaugh If He Has A Gambling Problem
HuffPost
Paul Blumenthal
,HuffPost•September 11, 2018
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) wants to know if Judge Brett Kavanaugh, President Donald Trump’s nominee to the Supreme Court, has a gambling problem.
Quote:

“Have you ever sought treatment for a gambling addiction?” Whitehouse asks pointedly as part of a series of questions submitted this week about Kavanaugh’s unexplained personal debts.


Quote:
In 2016, Kavanaugh reported credit card and personal loan debts of between $60,000 and $200,000. The Trump White House said these debts were the result of Kavanaugh buying baseball tickets for friends who later paid him back, as well as some spending on home improvements. The 2016 debts did not appear on Kavanaugh’s 2017 disclosure form because they were either entirely paid off or fell below the reporting threshold. Kavanaugh also reported between $60,000 and $200,000 in debt in 2006.


Quote:
Whitehouse also asked about a series of irregularities in Kavanaugh’s personal financial disclosures. How did Kavanaugh’s Bank of America account increase in value from between $15,000 and $50,000 in 2009 to between $100,000 and $250,000 in 2010, if he reported no increase in non-investment income or gifts?

And Whitehouse wants more information about how Kavanaugh and his wife afforded their $1.2 million home in 2006, and how he managed to pay for membership in the Chevy Chase Club, whose initiation fee is reportedly $92,000 with annual dues of more than $9,000.
[/code]
_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Mon Sep 24, 2018 10:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

great write up with what kavs roommate had to say about him in college. not a recommendation what so ever, in fact saying what we know now...

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/senate-democrats-investigate-a-new-allegation-of-sexual-misconduct-from-the-supreme-court-nominee-brett-kavanaughs-college-years-deborah-ramirez



Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct, from Brett Kavanaugh’s College Years

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Fri Oct 26, 2018 10:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

https://www.yahoo.com/news/newt-gingrich-suggests-kavanaugh-could-093137126.html


Quote:
Newt Gingrich Suggests Kavanaugh Could Block Democratic Bid To Get Trump's Tax Returns

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

good old citizens united...

again the right wing are arguing that we americans do not have the right to know where the money is coming from to win the elections.... just as they did to the supreme right wing controlled court. and the right wingers agreed on the court. again we had russian money going to the NRA to be used in the election.

here the local gov has said this money must be disclosed if over $1,000.00 right wingers again do not want it disclosed.


https://tucson.com/news/local/brnovich-to-rule-on-legality-of-tempe-s-ban-against/article_8fba3e24-cbb4-525d-b173-5d0e8fc5d546.html#tncms-source=infinity-scroll-summary-siderail-latest

Brnovich to rule on legality of Tempe's ban against 'dark money' in politics
By Howard Fischer Capitol Media Services Mar 14, 2019 Updated Mar 14, 2019
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Quote:
Kate Gallego wins Phoenix mayoral race
Kate Gallego won Phoenix’s mayoral race on Tuesday despite a late influx of “dark money” spent by an Oklahoma-based group on behalf of her opponent, Daniel Valenzuela.

Matt York / The Associated Press
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Print
Save
PHOENIX — Attorney General Mark Brnovich is going to rule whether cities can impose their own prohibitions on “dark money” in local campaigns.

The move comes because Sen. Vince Leach, R-Tucson, has invoked a state law that requires the attorney general to investigate allegations by lawmakers of violations of state laws by local officials.

In this case, Leach contends a Tempe initiative approved by voters in 2017, requiring public disclosure of the true source of campaign donations, is illegal.

What Brnovich decides — and he is required to issue a ruling — could affect the ability of cities and towns throughout the state to enact similar laws.

Meanwhile, former Attorney General Terry Goddard — citing dark money spent in the just completed Phoenix mayoral race — is crafting a new initiative asking voters statewide to put a “right to know” provision into the Arizona Constitution.

That measure, if it makes it onto the ballot and is approved in 2020, would most immediately overrule existing laws enacted by Republican lawmakers that now shield anonymous donors who finance high-dollar independent campaigns for and against candidates and ballot measures.

It also would remove any legal doubt that local governments can also enact disclosure requirements.

At issue most immediately is the Tempe ordinance.

It says that any group that spends more than $1,000 during any election cycle must “disclose the original source ... of all major contributions.” That includes the name, address and employer of anyone donating more than $1,000.

The measure was approved at the ballot by a margin of 91-1 and formally enacted by the City Council.

Leach contends the ordinance is in violation of a 2018 state law he pushed through the Republican-controlled Legislature that prohibits local governments from requiring organizations declared to be tax-exempt by the Internal Revenue Service from registering as political committees, even if they are putting money into races.

More to the point, it precludes any requirement that these so-called “dark money” groups identify donors. And it bars local governments from auditing the books of these groups or responding to subpoenas, even if there are allegations they are violating campaign-finance laws.

That law mirrors a 2015 measure, also approved by lawmakers, granting more anonymity to donors who put money into independent campaigns for statewide and local races.

In signing the 2017 law, Republican Gov. Doug Ducey, who has been the beneficiary of anonymous campaign donations, said he believes in transparency. But he also said there’s a valid reason to allow people to contribute anonymously to campaigns.

“People have a First Amendment right as well to participate and not be bullied,” he said.

Leach, in his complaint to Brnovich, echoed those sentiments in arguing that the 2017 law trumps Tempe’s ordinance.


“The state of Arizona always has the authority to protect the constitutional rights of its citizens, and no local ordinance may violate those rights,” he said.

Leach also cited a 1958 U.S. Supreme Court decision that nonprofit groups seeking to affect the political process can shield the names of donors.

“Tempe can no more violate this right than it could require voters to allow city officials to inspected their filled-out ballots,” he wrote. “Local control ends where constitutional rights begin.”

That question of local control could affect what Brnovich decides.

The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that the state’s 19 charter cities — Tempe is one of them — have certain rights under the state Constitution to decide matters of strictly local concern. For example, the justices rebuffed a bid to force Tucson to scrap its modified ward system of electing council members.

But Leach argues that right is not absolute.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
real-human



Joined: 02 Jul 2011
Posts: 10971
Location: on earth

PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

here is another way russians put money into our elections and this is also fine with right-wingers. the picture with the right wing justices needs to have we love russian money in it too.

The right wingers in the supreme court need to be impeached for such a stupid decision.

_________________
when good people stay silent the right wing are the only ones heard.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 13, 14, 15  Next
Page 14 of 15

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group